The Attack Has Begun

Photo by Gage Skidmore


No sooner did Rick Santorum sweep the three Republican primary or caucus races yesterday than the attacks began. As I’ve noted from time to time on Facebook, Mr. Santorum has escaped the scurrilous invectives up to this point because there’s nothing horrific in his background that lends itself to attack. Leave it to his opponents to find one: his religion. (He identifies himself on his Facebook page as a Christian – Roman Catholic).

The particular recrimination I saw most recently has a picture of Mr. Santorum on the left and one of Osama bin Laden on the right. Under Mr. Santorum’s picture is the caption, “This guy thinks religious law should override secular law.” Under Bin Laden the caption reads, “So does this guy.”

Well, assuming the person who put that bit of “humor” together had in mind some of Mr. Santorum’s socially conservative views, such as pro-life, that’s a pretty effective way of dismissing him as a nut no one need listen to. How sad! If you form an opinion based on selfishness or greed, it is fine if you want to supersede secular law with something new. But if your opinion is formed by a religious admonition such as “You shall not murder,” suddenly you’re viewed as a terrorist.

Of course his views on homosexual marriage received an immediate mention, too — as if this “secular law” has been around for centuries and suddenly this religious freak comes along and wants the rest of society to bend to his God’s laws. Well, news flash. The law of the land here in the bulk of the fifty states of the US is that marriage is between one man and one woman. The people trying to force a change are not the religious “nuts” but those who wish to redefine terms that have been in place for as long as this nation has been in existence.

But this caricature of Mr. Santorum serves a purpose — it demonstrates that there’s really nothing else his opponents can go after except the policies they hate so much, the ones they desperately want to keep out of the White House. All the “gains” the liberals saw under President Obama — specifically, government funded abortions here and abroad, aborted-fetal-tissue stem cell research, the movement toward socialized medicine — will come to an end.

At the least, now that the media can no longer ignore Rick Santorum, we’ll be forced to look at some of the issues that divide our country and need to be discussed … that is, until Saturday Night Live comes up with a skit to make him look like he’s off in left, make that, right field.

They did that with Mr. Gingrich, I guess. I missed the sketch but heard that it poked fun at his idea that our space program should work toward putting a colony on the moon. So now Mr. Gingrich is loony. Ha-ha-ha. Except, I heard him explain his ideas on one of the news shows, and it made perfect sense. He was addressing a crowd in Cape Canaveral, Florida — where people are greatly affected by the fact that we are no longer sending manned spacecraft to explore the heavens — and he was proposing a new way of doing business, one that would lean heavily on the private sector. As Mr. Gingrich said, It’s hard to imagine President Kennedy receiving the same kind of treatment when he proposed sending a rocket to the moon.

But that shows how our politics have changed. Now the person we differ with isn’t just misinformed or misguided or even wrong; he’s stupid, dangerous, the next tyrant or jihadist.

News flash for the Republicans — the Democrats have found the sweet spot. If they can paint a conservative candidate as stupid or foolish or ignorant, they are gold and the conservative candidacy is dead in the water.

They did it to Vice President Dan Quail (though some would argue that he did it to himself, I’d disagree; being a notoriously bad speller myself, I can testify that knowing how to spell potato has nothing to do with what you know or don’t know about governmental affairs). Since then, they’ve done it to President Bush with much less success, Sarah Palin, and a handful of Tea Party candidates during the 2010 election.

Somehow the Democratic candidates escape such accusations, though I can point to a number of their office holders from the state of California who ought to be scrutinized in this area. But why should anyone look back into their college records and see what their GPA is when they don’t hold any ignorant views such as creationism?

You see the bottom line, don’t you? It’s not intelligence or religious law or moon colonies. It’s all about authority. These people who don’t want “You shall not murder” to apply to unborn humans really don’t want anyone telling them what is right or wrong — not the Bible, certainly, but not the Constitution either, and not state propositions or amendments passed by the people. They want what they want, and until they get the law to let them have what they want, they’ll fight the rest of us however they can.

Even by attacking a moral, God-fearing … oops, there’s the problem. That’s what’s earned Mr. Santorum these attacks.

Published in: on February 9, 2012 at 6:33 pm  Comments (12)  
Tags: , , , ,

12 Comments

  1. Amen, Becky! I couldn’t agree more with anything anyone else has said yet about this campaign season!

    Like

  2. You’re so right. I What I find rather sad, though, is that there are a lot of conservatives who have taken to attacking Obama with the same vitriol as the liberals attacked President Bush. Not all of them, of course, but a few, and really, they should know better. They cried foul at the treatment Bush was receiving but have no compunction at doing it to Obama. I’ve been very saddened to see some of my Christian friends doing this and I just can’t understand it.

    I think the downfall of this nation began with post-modernism, the whole idea that there is no “truth.” So very sad.

    Like

  3. Don’t you just love how the media claims that Santorum’s being prolife is somehow more radical than Gingrich or Romney or Paul’s being prolife?

    I just hope that Obama’s attack on religious freedom, particularly his exercising veto power over what military chaplains might say in church services in the case of the bishops letter, will wake up some of those misguided Catholics who voted for Obama in spite of the clear evidence that his ideology was not all that compatible with the teachings of the Church or with that of mainstream Protestant/Evangelical Christianity either.

    The anti-Santorum hysteria reminds me a little of the anti-Palin hysteria. Perhaps it’s because both candidates are guilty of the ultimate heresy against the abortion cult— both have ‘defective’ disabled children that in the pro-abort world ought to have been aborted. Nothing more radically prolife than loving your own disabled child, I guess.

    Like

  4. I’m glad to see Santorum’s momentum build. If he’s persecuted for righteousness sake during his campaign, there might be a crown in it for that, even if it doesn’t result in the president’s hat. But I’m pulling for him to wear both.

    Like

  5. Great post.

    Like

  6. Dan Quayle. Q-u-a-y-l-e. 🙂

    Like

  7. Krysti, Sally, thanks for your encouragement.

    Ah, Jeffrey, you see what I meant about being a notoriously bad speller. Caught and convicted even as I am confessing! 😀

    Melissa, I whole-heartedly agree with you about the way people talk about President Obama. Because I disagree with him, even think he is doing wrong, I have no right to treat him with contempt or call him names. Christians that do so are sinning. In fact I wrote about this in a couple posts last month: “Judging” and “The Christian And Politics, Version 2012”.

    I also agree that post-modernism has accelerated our slide. If there is no objective truth, then people get to do what’s right in their own eyes. But I don’t think the problems started there. Was it during World War II with so many young men exposed to the horrors of war and the temptations of life far from home? Or was it the aftermath of Prohibition or the suffering of the Great Depression? Was it the effects of the Enlightenment and the new trust in reason? Was it the birth of evolutionary theory or the excesses of the Roaring Twenties? Maybe it was the Civil War or the existence of slavery in our nation for more than a hundred years. My point is, there have been lots of influences that have pulled us away from the central purpose those who established our nation aimed to accomplish.

    It’s helpful to understand all that, but it’s vital that we pick up the mantel and proceed to do our part. Which, I believe, first and foremost should include prayer!

    Becky

    Like

  8. Nissa, I wonder if Mr. Santorum isn’t getting the same kind of treatment Tim Tebow gets — lots of athletes claim to be Christians and even thank God publicly and pray. So why is Tim raked over the coals? I wonder if it isn’t because those watching know they mean what they say by the way they live. In Mr. Santorum’s case, like Sarah Palin, he has a child with a disability, one they didn’t abort. It’s proof that he is serious about pro-life And yes, the treatment of the two is similar. This position, which is much more reflective of mainstream America than are the extremes of abortion, is something liberals fear. They don’t want a conservative President and a conservative Congress because that will end up meaning conservative judges, and the courts have been the chief means by which the liberals have rammed their beliefs down the throat of American society. The courts and the media.

    Like

  9. OK, so I read your comment again, Nissa, and see I’m thinking along the same lines as you are.

    Bob, great comment. I’m happy with the way Mr. Santorum is getting more attention which translates into more campaign funds. What a shame that good men and women can’t simply run for office without money becoming the issue. There ought to be a better way!

    But yes, I hope he wears a crown in heaven and takes on the role of President here.

    Becky

    Like

  10. Still supporting him now?

    If you are, I’ll be very surprised.

    Like

  11. Joe, I’m wondering what you’re referring to? Why should anyone not support Mr. Santorum?

    Like

  12. I was wondering that, too, Krysti. I haven’t heard anything to make me change my mind. Yes, Mr. Romney has had lots of attack ads, I understand, but attack ads, by nature, distort the truth, not illuminate it. All I’ve heard reported on the news is that Mr. Santorum voted for a high number of spending bills. A straw man! The way Congress runs, every bill has spending because someone has added his own boondoggle or he won’t vote for this or that worthy cause. Hence, the concept of compromise. Oh, but apparently that’s a dirty word in politics these days.

    Becky

    Like


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: